I have, multiple times. I’ve suggested that, as a start, we look at those policies, like redlining, that harmed living Americans, and explore, research, investigate, and consider, whether financial compensation might be reasonable.
I think your choices here boil down to “simple and terrible” “terrible” and “complicated and terrible”.
If you want to sow seeds of division and anger then this is a perfect way to do it because the poor and disenfranchised of all colours and cultures will think “why them and not me?” unless you are thinking of addressing all those denied loans or discriminated against because economic situation or where they live or lack of services and assistance.
You may be comfortable that you can ring-fence the situations to which this would apply, I don’t agree, but even you could you won’t be able to ring-fence the social fall-out from it.
The problem is that you’ve started with the solution of “reparations” and worked backwards to find a situation to which it could apply. It is not nutty at all to think that wrong was done and this should be righted where possible. Thinking this is best done through arbitrary compensation via a complex, ill-defined mechanism of calculating financial harm…that does seem unreasonable and potentially damaging.
If you think people still living were treated illegally then recourse through the law exists, why not suggest funnelling money into pursuing court cases which has the benefit of an official calculation of harm where applicable and the possibility of those directly responsible being convicted or sanctioned.
It went from reasonable to unreasonable when the last person born into slavery died. That seems like a clear cut-off point.
Do you think that claims for reparations ever become unreasonable? 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? If so, how do you make that distinction?
There would be difficulties, but IMO the benefits would far outweigh negative fallout.
Is the possibility of fallout and division the reason why you oppose reparations? Would you otherwise support reparations if there was no worry about social fallout and division?
I’d support such court cases, but I think they will never cover more than a fraction of deserving cases. Like it or not, many older black Americans quite reasonably are terrified of government, authority, courts, and the like, and even if they think they were wronged, many would be unwilling to come forward due to how badly they’ve been treated by such institutions in the past. IMO, someone should be fighting for folks like them who are essentially unable to fight for themselves.
I think they would become unreasonable (or at least far less reasonable to the point that I would no longer support them) at the point at which no one alive has been harmed by government aided or tolerated oppression and discrimination.
You mention slavery when I’ve been talking about more recent forms of discrimination. Do you philosophically oppose reparations for things like redlining and other government-backed forms of oppression and discrimination? This paragraph seems different than your earlier opposition based on social and societal practicalities.
I wouldn’t start with the assumption that reparations are the logical endpoint of the discussion but I’m not opposed to the concept of reparations in theory as will be clear from my previous posts.
I would start with the question "how do ensure things improve for the people alive now and the generations to come?"and then follow that discussion where it leads. There is an enormous amount of ground to cover before a personal cheque gets signed and in the specific cases of redlining and loan refusal I think it is a solution well down the list.
You brought up 1865 yourself in your suggested timeline which I assumed meant you were referring to the end of slavery, That was the only reason I mentioned slavery myself.
Regarding your other points, no, I don’t have a philosophical objection, just a practical one in some cases. That and healthy regard for the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
My interest in reparations in part is about the societal (and perhaps even psychological) scars that decades and centuries of oppression and brutality have left on so many living Americans. When millions quite reasonably see government, authority, and law enforcement as a dangerous and deadly enemy to be feared, full equality is essentially impossible. Just as so many Japanese Americans saw reparations for their internment as an issue of honor and dignity – that for them to be able to consider themselves truly American, the nation must make amends for its sins against them – I think reparations are as much about healing cultural and psychological rifts as they are about literally repaying people for damages. For so many of those older black folks, based on my conversations with them, reparations would be about the only indication that the government truly, finally sees them as fully American and fully citizens.
American government, institutions, and authority were essentially brutal and dangerous enemies of black Americans for the vast majority of American history, well into the living memory of millions of Americans. Ta-Nehisi Coates makes the comparison to a stabbing victim – it’s not enough just to pull the knife out. If you stab me, I don’t have to say “thank you” when you pull the knife out, and that’s not good enough. To truly be just, more is necessary than just pulling the knife out – more than just ending brutal and discriminatory treatment.
Why can’t those who have been harmed but not paid file a lawsuit? Anyone else with a legit claim against an entity, including the government, can take it to court. There have been successful claims and settlements based on redlining.
Some probably would, but through most of their lives, the American government, courts, and law enforcement have been dangerous and unpredictable (and sometimes even terrorist) enemies, and they’d rather not risk coming forward. Some probably aren’t even aware that this is a possibility. Perhaps some others just aren’t interested. IMO, none of this would excuse the moral need to investigate and explore possible remedies to these injustices.
Your last line is where I disagree. The fact that legal remedies do exist, and have been executed, certainly does excuse the need to investigate further remedy. If you’ve been treated unjustly but are too afraid or uninterested to come forward, you get nothing.
At least we’ve identified the source of our disagreement. I think people who have been terrorized for most of their lives deserve our compassion and support, which includes this kind of thing when they’re functionally unable to seek out such redress themselves.
In other words, it’s not the Holocaust survivor’s fault if he doesn’t trust the German government. That distrust is actually pretty reasonable, and doesn’t excuse the German government from owing that survivor redress for past atrocities.
No one promised that all freed slaves would get 40-acres-and-a-mule. General Sherman did “* issued his Special Field Order No. 15, which confiscated as Union property a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina, to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast. The order redistributed the roughly 400,000 acres of land to newly freed black families in forty-acre segments.”
Indeed, few of those 40000 slaves got those 40 acres.
But there was never a "promise’ that all freed slaves would get 40-acres-and-a-mule.
My suggestion is that if any of those 40000 come forward now we grant them those 40 acres.
None of my ancestors kept black slaves in the USA. Some fought for the Union, in fact. The order was also made to punish Confederate planters. Not Union loyalists.
Reparations are a ridiculous idea based upon false history.
Indeed:’ financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee"
I agree, 40 acres to each surviving slave.
Yes, in those cases payment was made to the *survivors. *
**Not anyone who just happened to have the same skin color of the victims. **
If I was hurt by some redlining policy I would sue the bank or whoever it was responsible. Did the blacks not have the right to sue like everyone else?
I take it you haven’t read the thread, or the linked articles in the thread, in which discrimination and oppression backed by the government that harmed and plundered living Americans has been discussed. Not just slavery.
In many cases they don’t have the resources to mount a lawsuit with a chance of success. In other cases they don’t even know it’s possible. And others have lived their lives distrustful of courts because those courts have been tools to plunder their property, and thus aren’t willing to trust them (and risk precious time and money) for the possibility of justice. IMO, none of that excuses the need for redress after wrongdoing.
Women have been discriminated and oppressed. Irish Americans. Jews. Native Americans. Asian Americans. Catholics. Others. Let us write all of them a check for $20000. :rolleyes:
Yes, America paid ** 81,800** Japanese Americans who survived the Internment camps each $20000.
America did not pay 18,205,898 Asian Americans each $20000 based upon the color of their skin.
I cant believe you cant see how racist this is.
I can’t believe you still haven’t read my actual posts, in which I suggest identifying those specific Americans who were harmed by discriminatory policies, exactly as was done for Japanese-American internment, and exploring the possibility of financial redress.
If you actually read my posts and want to respond, feel free. If you’re just going to respond to crazy straw men, then you’ll have to do it all alone.